The Politics Of Inauthenticity [UPDATED] [And UPDATED Again]
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Free Trade | Protectionism — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[Last UPDATE]: CTV video of the reconfirmation here. Ante raised. - Moe Lane
[UPDATED Again] Taylor Marsh reports that CTV is sticking by their story (Via Glenn). Also, Senators Clinton, Obama? Thanks for the good press for Bush. Not always easy to get from Canadians. - Moe Lane
[UPDATE] The Canadian Embassy is denying the CTV story:
Washington, D.C., February 28, 2008 — The Canadian Embassy confirms that at no time has any member of a Presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA. Last night the Canadian television network, CTV, falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any Presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the Embassy to raise NAFTA.
No response yet from CTV. - Moe Lane
Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."
Read on . . .
Just utterly pathetic. Say one thing and do another--and anger a trading ally in the process. Weren't we told that these traits were a hallmark of the Bush Presidency? It would appear that the Politics of Hope resides in an especially fragile glass house.
Meanwhile, as the Obama campaign struggles to figure out what it really thinks about trade, this editorial tries to help set things straight:
The president's job is to take the long view of what's best for the country as a whole. Although it's hard to pinpoint jobs lost or created because of NAFTA, U.S. employment has grown far beyond ?kaid=108&subid=127&contentid=1391 even pessimistic estimates of the trade deal's costs. You wouldn't know that listening to Obama, who declared in a recent speech that "trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage." His stance is echoed by Clinton, who scolded Obama's campaign for distributing a flier that said she had called NAFTA a "boon" to the economy.
The centerpiece of both candidates' positions on trade is that future deals must include "good" or "strong" labor and environmental standards. That's vaguely comforting and feel-good-ish, but it's also misleading. Higher standards won't protect jobs and bottle up capital in the U.S. over the long term.
That's why the best course is to embrace free trade and fight for lower tariffs and other barriers to U.S. goods and services overseas. Protecting U.S. workers means giving them the education, training and, if necessary, retraining needed to compete for the higher-paying jobs that result from open markets. The capital and jobs that leave can help U.S. workers too by fostering stronger economies in the rest of the world and thus creating markets in which we can sell our products.
The increasingly global nature of business causes pain, but it's better to adapt to the competition than shake your fist at it.
Especially when the fist-shaking is so unbelievably fake.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Open border Dem calls GOP opponent a "David Duke" — Comments (4) »
The Politics Of Inauthenticity [UPDATED] [And UPDATED Again] 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
(being that I was just there) is their complete disinterest in the Republican Party over here. Perhaps it is because the GOP's nominee is already chosen so it's a non-headline story, but almost everyone I spoke with asked me what I thought of the Democratic candidates and which one I was going to vote for(do ya loik 'Illary' or Obauma")? They didn't seem to care that NAFTA reflected conservative fiscal and trade policy, or where those ideas originated.
I was startled. They of course credited Bill Clinton for NAFTA helping their economy and believed that Republican's were out to dominate the world. I don't mean to generalize the Irish, but just offer a little tourist feedback. I didn't meet one that was either interested in John McCain or understood why I was even considering voting Republican.
Initially, Obama winning the nomination scared the sh*t out of me. But as every day goes by, I am becoming more and more confident McCain is going to demolish him in the election.
...except that McCain isn't have a great set of news cycles either. So I feel about the same way as you do, but mirrored. I was worried about McCain, but I'd never really paid attention to his for periods longer than a sound byte before, never seen him in the long form. So when I see his penchant for making inaccurate blanket statements and his nervous way of delivering speeches and attacks, I realize that McCain's not going to wear well over 10 months either.
I understand your desire to reinforce negative stories pushed by the Clinton camp, since at this point your short-term interests are aligned with Hillary's, but posting this story was a little impulsive. Which isn't to say that I didn't think it'd be posted here, I knew it would, I just figured some other poster would put it up.
A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.
"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.
He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.
"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.
"There is no story as far as we’re concerned," he said. [Politco]
I actually wouldn't be surprised if Obama's camp had called to clarify Obama's position on NAFTA (not immediate withdrawal but renegotiation for increased labor and environmental standards, etc.) in the manner that he has done publicly and most recently at the debate last Tuesday. I wonder if at some point we'll find out that some PR person talked to another PR person because I don't know that the spokesman is necessarily omniscient or how thoroughly he's investigated this. But as of right now the people involved seem to be denying it, and none of the sources are particularly credible (or even named).
That's one heckuva defense of your guy there, Addison. Trust me: you're better off with the "It's just politics, baby" defense.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...is interesting, in and of itself.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
agree or disagree with Obama's position on NAFTA, its obviously better and commendable that he will do as he says rather than lie about it on the trail.
The bottom line is that this story was a non story, and its only posted here on RedState because its ammo against Obama. A classic throw-everything-at-the-wall and-see-what-sticks scenario. This one didnt stick. And neither would you have tolerated the fuzzy sourcing nor would you have tried to make excuses after its debunking if this were a story about McCain, Moe.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
It's more commendable that he do the right thing. Which, by the way, messing over our trade partners is not.
Do not say that no one ever told you this.
Moe
PS: Never tell me what I'm really thinking, azizhp. If you don't trust our motivations, don't read our site.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
If you don't like to be accused of pushing a poorly-sourced smear--and the associated hypocrisy charge, considering all the recent hand-wringing over the Times-McCain story--then don't help push a poorly-sourced smear. It might have traction with the 27% crowd who'll eat up anything like this as long as it's bad for the other guy, but it'll blow up in your face as the story loses credibility.
You see, CTV is sticking by its story:
Now, you can, of course - if you like - take the argument that if CTV wants to be taken seriously then it's up to the news agency to reveal its sources in this, and I'd actually agree with you on that; they should. Of course, that's just me being consistent, and everything.
God, but do you folks hate being told that this guy of yours is just a man!
Moe
PS: I won't bother asking you to retract the smear: I'm not so naive as to believe that you'd mean it. But keep a civil tongue in your head. I'm under no obligation to maintain whatever comforting illusions that you might have about your favored candidate, and if I need or want your opinion about my morals I'll ask you for them. Don't like my stuff? Don't read it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
In other news, Dan Rather sticks by his reporting on the Bush-TANG story, and the NYT sticks by its McCain-lobbyist story. Why on earth you think the this trumps anything I've said is beyond me.
I'm also not sure what you're trying to say here about me. I've got no problems with legitimate criticisms of Obama--I have a few of my own. I also don't think CTV is under an obligation to reveal their sources (even though they have), but I do think they need more substance if they're to be taken seriously in the face of official denials from both the campaign and the Canadian government. Of course, that's just me being consistent, and everything.
(Flame-retardant foam: I'm not interested in dredging up an argument over any of the things I said in these links that conservatives will likely find offensive, I'm citing them to back up the statement that I've been consistent in my stance on poorly-sourced reporting.)
...are in our allies' interests as much as ours. And, luckily, the voters agree. (Especially in swing states!)
As I noted below, to the extent that Obama has a statement saying he'll pull out of NAFTA completely he's not telling the truth. I'm not sure there is such a statement. But he's ALSO going against what he basically always says, which is that we need to renegotiate but NOT pull out because it's too integrated into our economy now so "mend it don't end it."
Obviously the "word set" used to describe that is, uh, "different" in Ohio. And that is, yes, "just politics, baby."
I am only asking since using phrases such as "I understand your desire", "I knew it would" and "your short-term interests are aligned" seem to indicate an ability to divine Pejman's intent.
Now if you cared to check the post NAFTA situation in the Senator's state you would find some interesting statistics. A few stand out such as Canada being their top export market, $15 billion in exports to NAFTA countries and their ranking as top Midwest state for foreign investment (approx. over 200,000 jobs). That's why Obama voted yea to fund places such as NAFTA Opportunity Centers when in the Illinois Senate (when not voting "present") and spoke favorably about the legislation. Hence the most recent dichotomy and specious, gratuitous explication.
I am therefore waiting for Obama's campaign unequivocably say they never spoke with any Canadian official or representative; period.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
As for "I knew it would," well, I was right, wasn't I? I would expect any report of Democratic duplicity to end up here as I would expect the same sort of report about Republicans (such as the lame McCain story) to end up on Dailykos. It's just the way things go, and no one will ever be proved wrong assuming these sorts of stories will show up, if not on the front page then in the user-generated content.
My statement about "desire" was simply matter of fact, no opinion or divination. Hillary and RedState both, at this point, want to go after Obama. The short-term interests are aligned.
I have no doubt that what we've seen out of both candidates on the NAFTA issue is pandering in terms of the language used and the lack of gray on the issue. But I also don't think Obama has been untruthful in his public statements that (a) we can't pull out of NAFTA because it's too integrated and (b) he feels there needs to be some environmental and standards regulations involved. Of course, to the extent he has ever been drawn into threatening in no uncertain terms to pull out of NAFTA completely I think he's not being truthful.
I don't know why the Obama camp hasn't given the full denial yet, perhaps (as I said) there was -- the Canadian Embassy's denial notwithstanding -- some PR to PR conversation or whatever. I don't know, but the Canadian Embassy's denial speaks for itself for now, and I really would have to be psychic to know more than that.
what Billy thinks of all this. Wasn't NAFTA suppose to be one of his shinning moments?
I understand Democrats opposing NAFTA because Mexican workers can work for less than US workers. I don't understand why they drag Canada into this argument. Are Canadians cheap labor? Doesn't Canada have that wonderful health-care system that all Democrats would like to follow? Don't Canadians have magic pixie dust that automatically reduces the price of prescription drugs just by passing through the Canadian border? Democrats could moderate their image if they said they oppose free trade with Mexico but support it for Canada.
Who are they going to believe? A government official, or the Guardians of the Freedom of the Press™?
Especially note that it's a Conservative in power in Canada.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
This isn't the first time a cynical Presidential campaign has said one thing on the campaign trail while promising behind the scenes to do the exact opposite:
I remember the 1980 Presidential campaign well. The Democrat incumbent, Jimmy Carter, stung by charges that he had let national defense deteriorate, announced his support for the MX ICBM program. And touted it as "proof" of his support for a strong national defense.
But to keep dovish liberals from defecting to the independent candidacy of John Anderson, Carter's campaign aides passed word around to the liberals that Carter's support for MX was just a campaign gimmick, and that Carter would cancel MX as soon as he won re-election that November.
The magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology picked up on this story and reported it. Making Carter seem even more pathetic than he had before.
The assertion by CTV that the facts of their story is credible. The denial from the embassy also doesnt carry as much cred with me. This leads me to suspect that there probably was some overzealous staffer trying to "do the boss a favor". However I see no reason to believe that Obama doesnt mean what he says. Of course I am based in favor of giving him the benefit of the doubt, whereas those who insist that Obama truly is lying through his teeth are probably biased in the opposite direction.
Moe, I appreciate you telling me what I am thinking, btw, in your RedHot commentary. Quite useful.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
But point taken: in the interests of good manners I will sprinkle in more qualifiers like "some" or "a select group of" or "various" in the future. Will that suit?
Moe
PS: Video in comments above re the CTV rebuttal; for the record, CTV shouldn't be sitting on their source like this. The affair's starting to get pretty serious, at least on the Canadian end; the network just effectively called their government a liar.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It's all about them, not the truth.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
All this anti-free trade talk is anti-American. This nation has been built upon a system of economic freedom. If you look at the nations in the world that have the healthiest economies and the lowest unemployment rates -- Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, the United States (which is not suffering from a depression or even a recession as Obama would have us believe) -- these countries all have the same principles of economic freedom. This includes free trade, less government regulations, lower tax rates, and smaller government.
The booming success of China and India is due to the fact that they have made their economies more like the United States. In fact, almost every nation in the world is moving towards freer markets and less taxation except for the American Democratic Party, Venenzuela, and a handful of others whom we do not want to be like. Over a dozen nations are moving towards a flat tax and many have already adopted it, to great economic success. Economic health is a matter of survival and creating jobs and the Democratic Party is reckless in their pandering to socialist policies which will not eradicate poverty. In fact, the most effective policy for getting rid of poverty was the welfare reform advocated by Newt Gingrich and signed into law (after it was modified down a few times) by Bill Clinton.
The United States should be a pround symbol of the free market and we need to start educating people who believe in all the Lou Dobbs nonsense. Democrats need to start reading the Op-Ed section of the Wall Street Journal. Socialism doesn't work and Europe's high unemployment and stagnant economies are a testament to that. The only European nations that are doing well, like Ireland, are those that have adopted an American-style economy. Mr. Economic Naivete, Barack Obama, wants us to become more like stagnant Europe.